RufusAtticus

I got this in an email today.
~~RvFvS~~

Forwarded message:
Dear Colleagues,

I got a copy of the proposed changes to Ohio's Science Standards today.
In brief what most of the proposals seem to be are ways to water down the
status of evolution from fact to "just a theory". I think this goes to the
idea that teaching that evolution is a fact (which it is) is seen as dogmatic
and unfair. There is also a diminishing of the idea that evolution can say
something about the origin of life on earth, or that the Big Bang says
something about how the universe originated. Some examples are:


CURRENT WORDING

Benchmark organizer, Evolution of Life, pg.130.

PROPOSED CHANGE

Evolution Theory


CURRENT WORDING

Page 127, Grades9-10, Benchmark #7
Students will explain that unity and diversity of life reflect their
evolutionary relationships.

PROPOSED CHANGE

Students will explain how evolutionary relationships contribute to an
understanding of the diversity of life.


CURRENT WORDING

Page 116, Grade 10, Indicator #5. Know how the evolution of life n earth has
changed the oxygen composition of the earth's atmosphere.

PROPOSED CHANGE

Know how the development of living organisms contributes to the change in
oxygen composition of the earth's atmosphere.


CURRENT WORDING

Page 158, Grade 12, indicator #1. Know that stars and other objects in space
emit electromagnetic radiation which we can detect and from which we can infer
information about the age, size and origin of the universe.

PROPOSED CHANGE

Know that stars and other objects in space emit electromagnetic radiation which
we can detect and from which we can infer information about the age, size and
DEVELOPMENT of the universe. [emphasis mine]


CURRENT WORDING

Page 170, Grade 11, Indicator #5. Describe how the evolution of life has
changed the physical world over geological time.

PROPOSED CHANGE

Describe how the process of evolution has changed the physical world over time.


CURRENT WORDING

Page 180, Grade 12, Indicator #10. Explain how information about the age, size
and origin of the universe is inferred by understanding that stars and objects
in space emit electromagnetic radiation which we can detect.

PROPOSED CHANGE

Explain how information about the age, size and DEVELOPMENT of the universe is
inferred by understanding that stars and objects in space emit electromagnetic
radiation which we can detect. [emphasis mine]


CURRENT WORDING

Page 170, Grade 12, Indicator #10. Explain other mechanisms for evolutionary
change, including genetic drift, immigration, emigration and mutation.

PROPOSED CHANGE

Explain additional components of evolutionary theory including genetic drift,
immigration, emigration and mutation.


Please see the Ohio Citizens for Science's web page at:

<a href="http://ecology.cwru.edu/ohioscience/" target="_blank">http://ecology.cwru.edu/ohioscience/</a>

--Steven A. Edinger

[ June 07, 2002: Message edited by: RufusAtticus ]</p>

tgamble

<a href="http://www.sciohio.com/whatisseao.htm" target="_blank">http://www.sciohio.com/whatisseao.htm</a>

Dr.GH

It becomes difficult to know just how a proposed change in wording could effect the classroom content. Most to the proposed changes could be seen as maintaining the status quo, but then; Why change anything?

tgamble

probably to make the wording more open to interpretation so that fundie teachers can be able to teach the "evidence against evolution". Even if they have to invent it.

Lizard

There is one change with which I agree:

I don't understand how the evolution of life has changed the physical world over geological time. I think the proposed change focuses more clearly on geological changes over time. Maybe I'm not understanding the point...

The rest of the changes cited are "designed" to avoid giving the Big Bang credit for starting the universe. The critics would rather talk about "development" than origin. "Origin," I suppose, has to be the Word of God. Well, nobody said the Big Bang wasn't instigated by some power or other. It's just impossible to prove or disprove via science.

More and more, I'm convinced that the real "materialists" are creationists and IDers, who demand that science conform to their ideas of how things in the physical universe happened.

???

Daydreamer

What about plant effects on soil/rocks/sand?
Animal and plant effects on the atmosphere?
Microorganismal effects on dead biomass?
Microorganisms and the nitrogen cycle?
Creation and desctruction of Ureaic Acid (or whatever the fish version is) in aquatic environs?
Effects of plankton on the light passing through water?
Effects of plankton on the O2/CO/CO2 contents of aquatic environs?

What about the detriments/benefits all these things place on other organisms in the same environment?

Then they're idiots.

Then lets expunge the Constitutional Convention from our US history text books, shall we?

Or a large scale quantem fluctuation.
Or a multidimensional string intersecting for the first time with our universe.

Try Stephen Hawking. Or Brian Greene.

True, but misleading. We can compare what we know of physics to possible theories of the origins of the universe and eliminate those that don't fit.

Semantics. You're redefining words so they can become applicable slander.

Well we happen to have, ya know, the theories and evidence to back it up as opposed to coping out with "goddidit".

[ June 09, 2002: Message edited by: Daydreamer ]</p>

Dr.GH

Hi Liz,

There are a number of biogenic geological formations such as diatomatious earth, coral reefs, many limestones, coal etc...

My personal guess is that someone just didn't like the phrase "the evolution of life," which they also want to change elsewhere.

As you know better than I, the Kansas creationist folks tried to just take evolution out all together. The Ohio crowd (probably as directed by the DI) seems to want to include ambiguity (I agree with tgamble and rufus here).

[ June 09, 2002: Message edited by: Dr.GH ]</p>